Case Number: BC686697 Hearing Date: June 08, 2018 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Medical Subpoena, or in the Alternative, Limit the Scope of the Medical Subpoena; Request for Sanctions, filed on 4/20/18 is GRANTED. The court has discretion to quash the subpoenas or modify it upon such terms and conditions as the court declares to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1

The court can quash the subpoena entirely or making any order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of a witness’s or consumer’s right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1.

The right to privacy is protected by the California Constitution. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839. Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendant has to show that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Defendant must show a compelling need for the discovery. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665; Davis v. Superior Court, (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.
Additionally, the scope of the permitted inquiry depends on the nature of the injuries which the Plaintiff has brought to the Court. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864.

The parties do not dispute that as a result of this incident, Plaintiff suffered injury to her left knee and sustained chest and rib pain. Declaration of Aihui Su, Ex. A; Opposition, 5:5. Defendant agrees that a medical records limited to the past seven years is sufficient. Opposition, Wasser Declaration, paragraph 8.

Defendant has not shown how medical records concerning injuries that are not implicated in this lawsuit are directly relevant.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Defendant was not required to file a separate statement since the motion does not concern responses to request for discovery. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(b).

The court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees and costs under CCP § 1987.2. Defendant has not shown substantial justification for failing to limit the subpoenas to records concerning the same body parts at issue in this litigation. The court imposes sanctions of $1,260 against Defendant and its attorney of record.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.